Sunday, December 31, 2017

Silence Breakers Not So Broken

[begin recorded segment of chat with Hairy] -viously not. The current claim is that these women are falsely accusing these powerful men. We are left with 'he said-she said' as the norm.

Well, I guess we'll have to resort to math, then.

Your viewers do not like you using math.

Yeah, I know. [irritated gill flutter] But a mathematical proof should appeal to people who like to be reasoned with. We should be able to approximate how many people would act that way, right?

Ready.

Take the population as a whole.

P
 
But we want to know how rare it is that a woman would just report it if it didn't happen at all, no matter what the repercussions. I think the average person knows they don't want to be really famous. Say the average person wants fame the amount of standard desire?

P(f)

But this would be fame that is NOT positive for the most part. People don't usually WANT to be thought of as wronged, you know, have the victim mentality that no one treats them as well as they should be treated?

Not suffering from a persecution complex. The very sane people. Where sanity is a range of 1 to 100.
P(f)-S100

Of course, to raise this number, we might simply say that most people of lower intelligence are in it, too.

(Where i-value is reduced)

. . . and this slightly twisted liar wants fame more than that?

(Where N, or narcissism value is increased) 

. . . and add the unusual trait of being completely unashamed of any negative thing about your personal life so you wouldn't recant under pressure? To have the tendency to fight back without remorse or hesitation? To thrive on it?

(Where V, or vanity-driven aggression, is unusually high)

What's the resulting formula?

Integrate {P(f)-S100} over diV, dN^, dV^, reaching combined limits over all potential emotional valence ranges.
 
How many people does that leave us? Bearing in mind that this is approximate? Should be to the nearest five or so? Based on emotional valences calculated from social media?

One. Donald Trump.

[gill snort] No wonder he doesn't believe them. HE wasn't raped, so he doesn't think anyone ELSE could've been. I'm going back to my research. [sudden disconnect]

Friday, December 29, 2017

Goaled And Heard: An Artist Of Every Strife


 Wisdom + Views = Goal  

W  - Views + View Asst. - View Asst. = Unheard W = Zero Sum (Goal Unmet)


Herr D has begun a fanfic crossover between "The Walking Dead" and "House, M.D." on fanfiction.net. The current title is "House's Plan 9 For The Walking Dead." It is currently receiving more views than both of his other published fanfics combined.

Hairy has explained the goal of teaching large numbers of humans how to improve their lives. However, he does not understand how to draw views and will not take Herr D's advice to do so.

Please comment if you have any suggestions on solving this problem.

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Successful Check-In From Georgetown

[pre-recorded segment begins, connection successful with Hairy's suitbot through improvised antenna]

What?

Net neutrality vote went as you predicted. Now the only people with full access are hackers like yourself.
 
Ooh. Well, I'm one of the 'white hats,' so I won't be taking much advantage. I'm still trying to understand humanity, and I'm busily pursuing more anthropological data. No need to worry. I'm nutrified, my fluid has been oxygenated, and I even increased the pressure in my suitbot for a few hours. Tell medbot to stand down, I'm fine!

Successful check-in noted. Medical status has been changed to 'DANGER' rather than 'MIA.'

[segment ends, upload, disconnect] 

Friday, December 15, 2017

Water Control To Major Hairy Flub

If anyone has seen Hairy please remind him to check in. He has possibly forgotten his protein supplement, and the reminders in his current suitbot are somewhat ignorable.

Sunday, December 3, 2017

Bias Tape: Conflict Good For Digestion?

"Duel" by Herr D on heromachine. He said he felt silly for getting the shadow wrong. I think he got the title wrong. 'En Garde' would have been better. Something else--if a unicorn were made of light, shouldn't it NOT cast a shadow?-Hairy


[task interrupt, recorded segment begins, suitbot transmission] You are partially ready to blog today? Commence.

So, I was trying to piece together this bit about how people digest the news.

Eating newspaper is unlikely to be healthy except for certain worms.

No. As in 'Reader's Digest.'

Digest as in mentally process.

Right. Well, I need the practice. I may try to converse with a live human again soon.

Your last several attempts did not go well.

I know. That's why I'm practicing. So I found this Post in the recycle bin and sat down where I could hear the t.v. through an open window.

Reference please.

Oh. Access my memory?

[neuralink access confirms, Washington Post 12/1/17 Sections A-C, Fox News 12/2/17 Approximately 8am-8:15am EST.

Right. So the Post almost always disagrees with Fox news by bias. As a newspaper, the Post has to be more accurate than a t.v. show.

Why? 

Because it costs more to be wrong. As an example, the commentator said it was a new thing to criticize a First Lady. That's not true, but no one is likely to call for a retraction. That's selective memory. An article in the Post pointed out that people criticized Michelle Obama for--well, a few things. Then he criticized criticizing Melania Trump for her choices of Christmas decorations. That's one of the things Michelle Obama was criticized for.

They are not as accurate as you about human events, though you are not even human.

Well, yes. Shelob, we are unusual in that we check our facts BEFORE we blog on them. Bloggers are normally less accurate than t.v. shows. T.v. shows are normally less accurate than newspapers. Newspapers are normally less accurate than wire services.

And people are normally more accurate than t.v. shows?

No, people are normally less accurate than blogs.

What about web news, news 'zines?

Hmmp. 'Zines I THINK are usually more accurate than blogs, but less accurate than papers. Some of them are better than t.v. and some aren't. You've done some of the calculations for me before.

These were the calculations based on bloggers that blog on op-ed level versus bias level on fact?

Right. Bias is MUCH easier to insert online, and mistakes are impossible to edit once printed and sent out. One of the best ways to get rid of it is to 'digest' one news story with both major biases. That way you don't have to know as many facts. Most of the time, if you just pit biases against each other in your reading, you don't have to do as much fact-checking.

So you might be mislead equally in two directions instead of one?
 
Well, it's more like the biases will cancel each other a little. Kind of like error cancellation.

You said you prefer the Post because it was accurate enough to be quoted by wire services.
 
Well that's right! The Post is unusually accurate. It's just not responsible to disregard news you don't like or don't agree with.

 Example please?

Take for example the unicorn. Most people have heard that only a virgin can capture a unicorn. A few centuries ago, some friar copied it wrong. The word was 'vines.' It makes sense that horns would tangle in vines. The virgin thing was just a Freudian slip. But if you write fantasy and stick to the vines? People won't read your stuff. You won't sell your books. You've got to be aware of not just majority rule, but majority ridiculousness.

The unicorn might be eliminated altogether, as it is fictional.
 
I KNOW it's a fictional animal. It's only the point I'm making!

 They possess only one point. It is the main identifier.

[irritated gill flutter] Signing off. Go blog. [disconnects]

[reupload, blog function on, disconnect]